SB60, titled the Louisiana Landowners Protection Act, prohibits private entities from exercising eminent domain for the transportation of carbon dioxide by pipeline or for geologic storage. The bill adds a statutory definition of “private entity,” declares that preexisting permits or certificates do not confer eminent domain, and removes several statutory provisions that previously authorized expropriation and unitization for carbon sequestration projects.
The changes recalibrate how carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) projects secure land access in Louisiana. By eliminating statutory pathways for forced land acquisition, SB60 makes developers rely on voluntary easements, purchases, or alternative routing, while also narrowing some of the Department of Energy and Conservation secretary’s powers related to unit operation and project certification.
That shift matters for project timing, cost, and legal risk for developers, landowners, and regulators alike.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB60 enacts R.S. 19:2.3 to prohibit expropriation by private juridical persons for CO2 pipeline transport or geologic storage, repeals statutory clauses that previously authorized such takings, and amends the energy code to remove certain unitization and expropriation authorities. The bill also states that preexisting orders, permits, or certificates do not confer eminent domain.
Who It Affects
CCUS project developers, pipeline companies, and public‑private partnerships that planned to rely on statutory eminent domain; private landowners and surface rights holders along proposed CO2 routes; and the Department of Energy and Conservation, whose authority to compel unitization or rely on expropriation is narrowed.
Why It Matters
This shifts the land‑acquisition model for carbon infrastructure in Louisiana from a statutory eminent‑domain backstop to a voluntary market model, increasing negotiation and routing burdens on developers and strengthening protections for landowners' property rights.
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 new statute, R.S. 19:2.3, that flatly prohibits expropriation by any "private entity" for the purpose of transporting carbon dioxide by pipeline or for geologic storage. The definition of "private entity" is intentionally broad: it covers private companies, associations, public‑private partnerships, contractors, subsidiaries, and entities acting on behalf of or with private parties.
The new section also includes an explicit savings clause: no order, permit, or certificate issued before the law takes effect may be read to confer or preserve any eminent‑domain power.
SB60 then rewrites parts of Title 30 (energy/conservation law). It removes statutory authorizations that previously allowed private parties to use expropriation for CO2 projects and strips the secretary of certain coercive tools—most notably authorities tied to ordering unit operation of reservoirs and some expropriation‑enabling provisions.
The bill preserves the administrative framework for permitting storage and transport facilities but severs the link between permits/certificates and a right to take land by eminent domain.Practically, the result is twofold. First, developers who had planned to rely on statutory eminent‑domain powers must now secure land access through negotiation, purchase, or voluntary easements; routes that depended on forced acquisition may require redesign or abandonment.
Second, the Department of Energy and Conservation retains a regulatory role—inspections, environmental compliance, and technical permitting tied to underground injection control and the Safe Drinking Water Act remain—but the department's ability to impose unitization or to vest private entities with eminent‑domain authority is curtailed.SB60 also adjusts the state's policy language to emphasize the protection of natural resources and individual constitutional rights alongside federal SDWA compliance. The bill's effective‑date language makes its prohibitions prospective and clarifies that earlier-issued authorizations do not resurrect eminent‑domain powers.
Those two points—broad prohibition and explicit non‑retroactivity regarding eminent domain—are the statute's operational centerpieces.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB60 enacts R.S. 19:2.3, which prohibits expropriation by any private entity for transporting CO2 by pipeline or for geologic storage.
The bill defines "private entity" broadly to include domestic and foreign business organizations, public‑private partnerships, contractors, subsidiaries, affiliates, and entities acting with or on behalf of private parties.
SB60 provides that no order, permit, or certificate issued before the law's effective date confers any right of eminent domain related to CO2 transport or storage.
The measure repeals R.S. 19:2(10) and (11) and R.S. 30:4(C)(17)(b), 1104.2, and 1108, removing statutory authorities that previously supported expropriation and ordered unitization for CO2 projects.
While the statutory certificate framework (R.S. 30:1107) remains, SB60's prohibitions mean certificates no longer operate as a mechanism to obtain private eminent domain for CO2 pipelines or storage.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Ban on private eminent domain for CO2 transport and storage
This new section makes it unlawful for any "private entity" to expropriate land for CO2 pipelines or geologic storage. The drafting intentionally sweeps widely in defining private entity to capture corporations, partnerships, contractors, and public‑private ventures. The section also contains a retroactivity‑style clause: prior orders, permits, and certificates will not be read to create or preserve eminent‑domain power. For developers, that clause eliminates the security of relying on previously issued authorizations to obtain condemned rights.
Clearing the secretary's rulemaking scope for CO2 pipelines
The bill narrows paragraph (17) by preserving the secretary's authority to regulate design and operation of CO2 pipelines used for enhanced oil recovery but removes companion language that previously supported expropriation authority (subsection (b) is repealed). The practical effect is to keep safety and technical oversight in state hands while decoupling that oversight from any statutory power to compel land transfers for private projects.
Policy statement refocused on environmental and constitutional protections
SB60 deletes the prior statutory declaration that carbon dioxide is a "valuable commodity" to the state and reframes the state's primary responsibilities. The amended policy retains federal SDWA compliance as a core duty and adds explicit language about protecting natural resources and safeguarding constitutional rights. This signals a legislative prioritization of environmental and property protections alongside technical regulation of underground injection.
Secretary's operational powers limited; unitization link removed
The amendments revise the department's authority over storage facilities and pipelines by removing cross‑references to provisions (R.S. 30:1104.2) that authorized unitization and compelled participation. The introductory paragraph to 1104(C) is edited to retain the hearing requirement for reservoir storage approvals but eliminates the statutory path that tied hearings to exercises of eminent domain. Practically, the secretary keeps permitting and technical review authority but loses the statutory mechanisms that could coerce land or ownership consolidation for storage projects.
Certificates retained but stripped of takings power
Section 1107 continues to provide the administrative criteria by which the secretary may issue certificates of public convenience and necessity or completion of injection operations after public hearing. However, read together with the new R.S. 19:2.3 and the repeals, issuance of a certificate can no longer be used as the vehicle to obtain eminent domain for private CO2 transport or storage projects. The secretary may still grant certificates on public‑interest grounds, but those certificates will not confer a legal right to condemn land.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy 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
- Private landowners and surface rights holders — They gain statutory protection against coercive land takings for CO2 pipelines or storage projects, increasing their negotiating leverage and preserving control over property decisions.
- Property rights and conservation advocates — The bill strengthens statutory safeguards for private property and environmental resources, aligning state law with advocacy priorities that oppose forced acquisition for private energy infrastructure.
- Local communities and municipalities hosting proposed projects — With expropriation off the table, communities retain greater say over siting outcomes and potential land‑use impacts, as developers must secure local consent or voluntary easements.
Who Bears the Cost
- CO2 pipeline and storage developers — Loss of eminent‑domain authority raises land‑acquisition costs, extends project timelines, and increases the risk that routes will be blocked or rerouted, potentially rendering some projects uneconomic.
- Public‑private partnerships and investors in CCUS projects — The private partners that expected statutory condemnation as a backstop face higher transactional risk and potential capital shortfalls as easement negotiations replace statutory takings.
- Project off‑takers and ratepayers (indirectly) — Increased costs for securing rights‑of‑way and longer development schedules may be passed downstream to purchasers of CO2 services or to consumers if projects rely on regulated cost recovery.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate policy goals against each other: protecting private landowners from coercive takings versus enabling the rapid buildout of CO2 transport and storage infrastructure that many see as essential to decarbonization. Eliminating statutory eminent‑domain tools resolves property‑rights concerns but imposes real costs and legal uncertainty on infrastructure developers, with no obvious legal mechanism in the bill to reconcile the competing priorities.
SB60 resolves one political argument—preventing private eminent domain for CO2 infrastructure—by inserting a blunt statutory prohibition. That simplicity, however, generates several implementation and legal challenges.
First, the bill preserves administrative permitting but removes the expropriation shortcut, creating a gap between having a permit and having land access. Projects may therefore obtain technical approval yet be unable to construct.
Developers will need to plan for more extensive land acquisition costs, longer timelines, and the possibility of having to litigate compensation claims unrelated to statutory condemnation (for example, contract breaches or inverse condemnation claims under constitutional law).
Second, the statute's broad definition of "private entity" secures coverage but leaves room for litigation about edge cases: does a state‑chartered authority or an entity acting under a cooperative agreement with the state qualify as private? The bill also interacts with federal law and interstate commerce considerations—interstate CO2 pipelines or projects touching federal lands may implicate federal preemption or federal permitting regimes, so the practical effect could vary by project type.
Finally, the explicit statement that prior permits and certificates do not confer eminent domain introduces legal uncertainty for projects that relied on preexisting authorizations; those projects may face renegotiation with landowners or constitutional takings suits seeking compensation for lost expectations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.