This bill directs the State Air Resources Board to run a competitive grant-style purchase program that uses up to $50 million to buy verified carbon dioxide removals from projects located in California. The program targets four categories of removal technologies (direct air capture, biomass carbon removal and storage, enhanced mineralization/weathering, and marine removal), requires independent verification and long-duration storage, and conditions funding on community benefit arrangements.
Why it matters: the measure turns public dollars into a direct market signal for nascent removal technologies while insisting on permanence and community protections. It sets procurement mechanics (advance and verification-linked payments), caps on awards by category and sponsor, and reporting requirements that will shape what types of projects can be financed and how quickly those projects scale in the state.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill tasks the state board with a competitive grant/purchase program to spend $50 million (through Dec 31, 2035) buying carbon dioxide removals from eligible, in‑state projects. It requires independent third‑party verification, permanence safeguards, community benefits, a bidding/payment structure with partial advance payments, and limits on awards by category and sponsor.
Who It Affects
California‑based carbon removal project sponsors and developers (DAC, biochar/biomass storage, mineralization, marine projects), the State Air Resources Board (as program administrator), host communities negotiating benefits, third‑party verifiers, and private purchasers who must match state funding for awarded projects.
Why It Matters
Public procurement at this scale will influence early CDR market development, site selection, and technology pathways by privileging projects that can meet verification, permanence, and community benefit requirements—and that can secure matching private purchase commitments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a narrowly scoped state procurement program for carbon dioxide removal (CDR). The State Air Resources Board must run a competitive process to select projects and spend a total of $50 million between mid‑2026 and the end of 2035; up to 10% of funds can cover start‑up administrative costs.
Projects must be physically located in California and meet standards set in program guidelines. The board must run at least two public workshops before any funding and must publish an annual survey and program report (including cost‑per‑ton information) beginning January 1, 2028 and continuing through 2035.
Procurement is structured around bids that state a total payment and the total tons to be removed during the contract term. The board must establish a payment approach that allows up to half of a contract value to be paid in advance and requires at least half the payment on “initial verification” — defined as independent third‑party confirmation that the stated quantity of removal is complete and meets minimum duration criteria.
Awarded projects must permanently retire the tons the state contracts for, so those tons cannot be re‑issued as tradable removal credits in the future. The statute also requires projects to demonstrate they are “additional” (would not have occurred otherwise) and to have secured carbon removal purchases from third parties at least equal to the state contribution.The bill limits how funds may be distributed by technology category and by sponsor—generally no more than $25 million to a single category and no more than $12.5 million to any one sponsor—while allowing the board to relax those limits if it finds it infeasible to meet the in‑state distribution goals within the statutory timeframe.
Guidelines must set a minimum sequestration duration that is not less than 100 years, ban use of removals for enhanced oil recovery, and restrict use of biomass feedstock except where the bill defines biomass carbon removal and storage. The board may consult multiple state and regional agencies in designing program standards, and the guideline development is exempted from the normal administrative rulemaking chapter referenced in the Government Code.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Total program funding is $50,000,000 (available for encumbrance and liquidation through June 30, 2035), with up to 10% allowed for administrative setup.
Contracts must specify total tons and total payment; the board’s payment structure may provide up to 50% in advance and requires at least 50% upon independent initial verification of removals.
An eligible project must secure third‑party carbon removal purchases at least equal in value to the state’s grant to that project before receiving funds.
Guidelines mandate projects be sited in California, require independent verification, prohibit use of removals for enhanced oil recovery, and set a minimum sequestration duration of no less than 100 years.
Grants are generally capped at $25 million per technology category and $12.5 million per individual project sponsor, but the board can delay purchases or relax those caps if in‑state feasibility is lacking (with up to a five‑year delay option).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions
This section supplies targeted definitions the program relies on: what counts as carbon dioxide removal versus emissions avoidance; categories like biomass carbon removal and storage; what a project sponsor is; and what constitutes a community benefits mechanism. The definitions matter because they narrow eligible feedstocks and approaches (for example, excluding crops grown for energy or food and distinguishing biomass removed for wildfire mitigation), shaping which projects can pass the eligibility gate.
Program establishment, duties, and transparency requirements
The state board must design and run the competitive purchase program, host public workshops before funding begins, publish an annual survey of CDR projects in California starting Jan 1, 2028, and issue annual program reports through 2035 that include cost‑per‑ton data. The board also must define a bidding/transaction process (including the advance/verification payment split) and specify a minimum contract lifespan to use in grant evaluations. These procedural requirements give vendors an advance view of procurement mechanics and require the board to create baseline market intelligence to inform future procurements.
Funding, eligibility, categories, and award limits
The statute allocates $50 million total for awards between July 1, 2026 and Dec 31, 2035 and ties eligibility to two hard tests: (1) in‑state location and additionality, and (2) demonstration that the project can lock in equal third‑party purchase commitments. It identifies four technology categories the board must consider (direct air capture; biomass carbon removal and storage; enhanced mineralization; marine removal) and sets ceilings of $25 million per category and $12.5 million per sponsor. The board can waive those distribution and cap constraints if it documents infeasibility, including a discretionary up to five‑year runway to allow technology development or market growth.
Guidelines: verification, permanence, bans, and community benefits
By Jan 1, 2028 the board must issue program guidelines specifying eligibility, third‑party verification requirements using industry‑standard protocols, community benefit obligations proportionate to project scale, and a minimum duration for storage that must be at least 100 years. The guidelines explicitly ban use of removals for enhanced oil recovery and prohibit some biomass feedstocks except where biomass carbon removal and storage is the method. The statute also carves these guidelines out of the state’s usual administrative rulemaking chapter, giving the board procedural flexibility but reducing typical rulemaking oversight.
Appropriation and fund availability
Implementation requires a separate legislative appropriation. Once appropriated, program funds are available for encumbrance and expenditure until June 30, 2035, and for liquidation until that same date. That timing constrains contract lengths and the board’s ability to commit long‑term public money, which is especially relevant for projects that need multi‑year deployment and monitoring commitments to satisfy permanence requirements.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- California‑based CDR developers that can satisfy verification, permanence, and matching‑purchase requirements — they gain public procurement revenue and early market signals that reduce off‑take risk.
- Host communities that negotiate community benefits mechanisms — the bill requires projects to incorporate local hiring, oversight, revenue sharing, or similar arrangements, which can deliver tangible local economic or social advantages.
- Technology suppliers and researchers — procurement tied to verified removals and published cost‑per‑ton data will create clearer commercial benchmarks that can attract private investment and accelerate supply‑chain development.
- Manufacturers and product sectors using sequestered carbon in value‑added products (e.g., low‑carbon concrete) — projects that convert removals into durable products may find new demand channels supported by state purchases.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Air Resources Board (program administrator) — responsible for designing procurement mechanics, conducting surveys and reports, running workshops, and developing guidelines, with administrative expenses taken from the program cap and additional ongoing workload.
- Project sponsors — must demonstrate additionality, secure matching third‑party purchase commitments, pay for independent verification and long‑term monitoring, implement community benefit mechanisms, and comply with bidding and contract terms, all of which raise project costs.
- California taxpayers — program execution depends on a legislative appropriation and represents a public subsidy for early‑stage CDR projects that may be higher‑cost per ton than future market rates.
- Third‑party verifiers and monitoring entities — increased demand for independent verification and long‑duration monitoring creates workload and potential liability exposure for verification firms and monitoring agencies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals—using public funds to drive rapid deployment of carbon removal technologies, and imposing strict permanence, verification, and community‑benefit safeguards to avoid environmental and equity harms—but speeding procurement and protecting against long‑term risk pull in opposite directions: quicker commitments raise the chance of paying for unproven or non‑permanent removals, while stricter safeguards increase costs and favor larger, better‑resourced projects.
The bill tries to thread two difficult policy needles at once: accelerate deployment of a set of technologies while imposing strong permanence and community protections. That creates several practical tensions.
First, the requirement that projects secure third‑party purchase commitments equal to the state’s contribution favors well‑capitalized sponsors with market access, which could squeeze out smaller, community‑led pilots even though those pilots may offer important local benefits. Second, the 100‑year minimum sequestration threshold and the requirement to permanently retire contracted tons push for high confidence in permanence—but the statute leaves open how long the state will monitor, who pays for long‑term verification, and what specific metrics constitute “no material threat” from leakage.
Those operational questions matter because long‑term stewardship is costly and technically complex.
The bill’s in‑state siting requirement plus category and sponsor caps aim to diversify technology and geography, but they also limit the pool of available removals at a time when large‑scale supply is scarce and expensive. The feasibility exception gives the board discretion to buy out‑of‑state removals or delay purchases up to five years, which is a practical safety valve but also introduces timing uncertainty for developers.
Finally, exempting guideline development from ordinary administrative rulemaking accelerates implementation but reduces procedural checks and could concentrate discretion in the board; stakeholders relying on stable, transparent rules may find that tradeoff problematic.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.